There are ten important conclusions of the report, supported by scientific evidence. However, there is an entire family of four elephants-in-the-room missed by the report.
I also appreciate Mr. Raman making this great point, one I've often made as well:
"To take an analogy, in a case of suspected murder, the question of when the event happened is of prime importance – it should raise eyebrows if an investigation assiduously avoids the question of timing."
In my articles on Early Spread, I've pointed out that my wife and I are fans of the "Dateline" crime shows. It seems like in every one of these episodes, detectives start their investigations by creating a "timeline" of known important events.
This, of course, didn't happen in the investigation of this "crime." Or "investigators" simply assumed that the key event (virus spread or "case zero") occurred in December 2019 in Wuhan.
Well, what if this date (or even city) is wrong? The entire investigation would be starting from a flawed/incorrect premise. As far as I can tell, no virus sleuth detective has ever investigated the possibility the "crime" started months earlier. Because of this, many possible "suspects" never got questioned or investigated. The guilty could have gotten away with the crime because no detectives were asking them hard questions.
I also know from watching "Dateline" that when investigators all start from an incorrect crime assumption, the rest of the investigation quickly goes sideways. Events, people and organizations that should have been seriously investigated early on ... are not investigated.
Also, this thought has occurred to me: The "investigators" - those in charge of bringing the guilty to justice - might themselves be the lead suspects. (So they, of course, don't mind if the investigation goes off on a wrong tangent).
This is a wonderful summary of the “Covid After Action” report.
Since I’ve done extensive research on the topic, I appreciate the references to the importance of “early spread.” I love the author’s statement that WHEN the virus began to spread is more important than the question of WHERE spread might have commenced.
The CDC's ONE belated study of archived Red Cross blood seems to “confirm” (via positive antibody results) that millions of Americans had probably already been infected by this virus by late November/December 2019.
Since there was no spike in deaths before the lockdowns (when the virus had been spreading for months), the lockdowns were futile and unnecessary. The main take-away from an acknowledgment of “early spread” is that this respiratory virus was NOT “deadly.” Thus, there was no need for any of the “mitigation measures” nor the “warp speed,” experimental non-vaccines.
I also think some key officials KNEW the virus was already spreading, information they no doubt withheld from President Trump.
To put a bow on this posting thread and why I think this topic is important ...
If it never occurred to a single public health expert or epidemiologist that "virus spread" could have been occurring weeks or months before the "Wuhan outbreak" of mid-December 2019 ... all of our trusted public health officials must be dunces and obtuse ... and are guilty of gross incompetence and professional malfeasance.
... If this DID occur to a few experts ... and they covered-up this salient fact (or intentionally refused to seriously investigate this possibility), we have a very sinister scandal ... one that, to this day, has never been exposed or seriously investigated by anyone (except for myself - a freelance journalist in Troy, Alabama) and a few other people.
I’m grateful to be a part of The Brownstone team of writers, who HAVE always been interested in the taboo “early spread” line of inquiry.
Re: The ONE CDC study of "archived Red Cross blood" ...
This tranche of blood was collected from donors in CA, WA and OR Dec. 13-16, 2019. Two (2) percent of the tested blood was positive for Covid antibodies. However, these people obviously didn't contract Covid or this virus in mid-December as it takes a week or two for antibodies to form. Probably all of this cohort had been infected in November 2019 (if not earlier for some of them).
The study the CDC self-published on this "archived" blood wasn't published until Nov. 30, 2020 - almost a year after the blood had been donated and collected. This prompts me to ask: How long does it take to test a couple thousand units of blood for antibodies? Couldn't such testing have been done BEFORE the lockdowns were ordered? Answer: Of course, it could have.
What if everyone in the country knew by March 15, 2020 that at least 2 percent of the population had ALREADY been infected by November 2019? Would the "Covid narrative" have been different?
Why would our trusted leaders order lockdowns to stop spread if millions of people had already been infected by early December 2019? Also, spread of this "very contagious virus" didn't stop in December 2019. The virus kept infecting millions of other people.
Nobody knows how many Americans (or world citizens) had already been infected by March 15, 2020 ... but this figure must be massive.
I also appreciate Mr. Raman making this great point, one I've often made as well:
"To take an analogy, in a case of suspected murder, the question of when the event happened is of prime importance – it should raise eyebrows if an investigation assiduously avoids the question of timing."
In my articles on Early Spread, I've pointed out that my wife and I are fans of the "Dateline" crime shows. It seems like in every one of these episodes, detectives start their investigations by creating a "timeline" of known important events.
This, of course, didn't happen in the investigation of this "crime." Or "investigators" simply assumed that the key event (virus spread or "case zero") occurred in December 2019 in Wuhan.
Well, what if this date (or even city) is wrong? The entire investigation would be starting from a flawed/incorrect premise. As far as I can tell, no virus sleuth detective has ever investigated the possibility the "crime" started months earlier. Because of this, many possible "suspects" never got questioned or investigated. The guilty could have gotten away with the crime because no detectives were asking them hard questions.
I also know from watching "Dateline" that when investigators all start from an incorrect crime assumption, the rest of the investigation quickly goes sideways. Events, people and organizations that should have been seriously investigated early on ... are not investigated.
Also, this thought has occurred to me: The "investigators" - those in charge of bringing the guilty to justice - might themselves be the lead suspects. (So they, of course, don't mind if the investigation goes off on a wrong tangent).
This is a wonderful summary of the “Covid After Action” report.
Since I’ve done extensive research on the topic, I appreciate the references to the importance of “early spread.” I love the author’s statement that WHEN the virus began to spread is more important than the question of WHERE spread might have commenced.
The CDC's ONE belated study of archived Red Cross blood seems to “confirm” (via positive antibody results) that millions of Americans had probably already been infected by this virus by late November/December 2019.
Since there was no spike in deaths before the lockdowns (when the virus had been spreading for months), the lockdowns were futile and unnecessary. The main take-away from an acknowledgment of “early spread” is that this respiratory virus was NOT “deadly.” Thus, there was no need for any of the “mitigation measures” nor the “warp speed,” experimental non-vaccines.
I also think some key officials KNEW the virus was already spreading, information they no doubt withheld from President Trump.
To put a bow on this posting thread and why I think this topic is important ...
If it never occurred to a single public health expert or epidemiologist that "virus spread" could have been occurring weeks or months before the "Wuhan outbreak" of mid-December 2019 ... all of our trusted public health officials must be dunces and obtuse ... and are guilty of gross incompetence and professional malfeasance.
... If this DID occur to a few experts ... and they covered-up this salient fact (or intentionally refused to seriously investigate this possibility), we have a very sinister scandal ... one that, to this day, has never been exposed or seriously investigated by anyone (except for myself - a freelance journalist in Troy, Alabama) and a few other people.
I’m grateful to be a part of The Brownstone team of writers, who HAVE always been interested in the taboo “early spread” line of inquiry.
Re: The ONE CDC study of "archived Red Cross blood" ...
This tranche of blood was collected from donors in CA, WA and OR Dec. 13-16, 2019. Two (2) percent of the tested blood was positive for Covid antibodies. However, these people obviously didn't contract Covid or this virus in mid-December as it takes a week or two for antibodies to form. Probably all of this cohort had been infected in November 2019 (if not earlier for some of them).
The study the CDC self-published on this "archived" blood wasn't published until Nov. 30, 2020 - almost a year after the blood had been donated and collected. This prompts me to ask: How long does it take to test a couple thousand units of blood for antibodies? Couldn't such testing have been done BEFORE the lockdowns were ordered? Answer: Of course, it could have.
What if everyone in the country knew by March 15, 2020 that at least 2 percent of the population had ALREADY been infected by November 2019? Would the "Covid narrative" have been different?
Why would our trusted leaders order lockdowns to stop spread if millions of people had already been infected by early December 2019? Also, spread of this "very contagious virus" didn't stop in December 2019. The virus kept infecting millions of other people.
Nobody knows how many Americans (or world citizens) had already been infected by March 15, 2020 ... but this figure must be massive.
I am a bit confused by the “India” references throughout the article’s “Comments”.